The State Worker

Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.

Dec. 1 Blog back: ... the 'trade' with Seattle

The State Librarian, Susan Hildreth, is an experienced library administrator. The fact she is leaving the top librarian post in the state is a sympton (sic) that other places have more to offer. In the last five years, the budget of the state library for journals that state workers use for their jobs has been cut 5 fold. Next year's budget will be worse.

Many California county law libraries now have bigger budgets than does the state library. So lawyers in state service now enter court with a professional disadvantage. The State Library, and some state agency libraries house and lend the materials that state workers need to carry out their daily jobs. Diminished information resources make it harder for state workers to do their jobs.

Apt points. An earlier Seattle Times story outlined the city's gleaming new library facilities and strong public support for the system. Also worth noting: Hildreth made $153,000 annually, according to state pay records. The Times reported that her successor in Seatte, Deborah Jacobs, made $178,000.

We asked Emily Heffter, the Seattle Times reporter who has been following the story, if she knew how much Hildreth's new job will pay. Heffter said that as of Monday the final terms had not been announced.

Dec. 2 Schwarzenegger: State now 'almost forced' into layoffs

What is he waiting for? Fire 50% of the state workforce NOW. We don't need 75% of what they do. Let the people keep their money. If you state workers don't like it, go get a job that actually generates revenue instead of relying on coercively extracted tax dollars from your fellow Californians.

As we noted a few weeks ago in our Thursday column, you could fire every single state employee paid with general fund money and still not completely close the budget gap. And we haven't seen any studies or audits supporting the assertion that "we don't need 75 percent" of what state workers do. Data, please.

Dec. 2 More details about possible state worker layoffs

Even if layoffs don't come to pass, it's likely that the next budget will have a more extensive furlough. For example, two or three days a month. Or a shift to a four-day workweek, a.k.a. four days a month furlough. With that in mind, plan ahead: Don't go overboard on your holiday partying and gift-giving. Cut back on spending and conserve your cash as 2009-2010 is going to be a very unpleasant fiscal year.

Our Bee business colleague and newbie Home Front blogger Dale Kasler on Tuesday wrote that the year-old economic recession is "shaping up as a long one." That means the state's tax revenues will take another beating next year and, according to some experts Dale has interviewed, maybe into 2010. Read his insightful Home Front post by clicking here.

Dec. 3 Still more about possible layoffs

This could also be Arnold's version of "The Shock Doctrine." According to author Naomi Klein repressive right-wing governments have a well established history of using crises and emergencies to push through radical economic changes that would be rejected by the populace under normal circumstance. Arnold has wanted to bust the public service unions and dismantle CalPERS for a long time. Now he can use the "shock and awe" of the present budget crisis to try and do so again.

An interesting take. We would extend that observation to left-leaning administrations, such as FDR's Depression-era public works programs and Social Security and LBJ's War on Poverty in the 1960s. Right wingers don't have a monopoly on pushing radical economic change in a time of crisis.

Jon - Did you even think to ask Ms. Jolley if she even has a "plan" to reduce the State workforce? Or do you agree that just whacking people indiscrimately (sic) is the best way to proceed? What amount of disruption in State operations does Ms. Jolley expect? What will be the criteria for laying people off? Performance Reviews? Seniority? What about contractors who get paid more then State workers? Will they be let go as well, or will we hire more of them? How many people let go does Ms. Jolley expect to never return to State service, resulting in an increase in costs of retraining later on? Are there any specifics at all?

We're working getting answers to those questions and more. In the interest of speed, we've put up information as we've learned it instead of holding back information until every jot and tittle is defined.

You asked, "Or do you agree that just whacking people indiscrimately (sic) is the best way to proceed?" Our answer: No.

Our sense as of this writing on Thursday afternoon is that layoff details haven't been hammered out. One frequent State Worker blog user sent an e-mail with this theory:

I think this threat can also be something towards the union to passive aggressively say (as opposed to saying anything to our faces or say "let's sit down together and work something out") we (the state) are not willing to negotiate for any increases, don't push us or we'll just cut some of your jobs.

Our State Worker column today prompted this e-mail:

Rarely mentioned in this CSLEA bickering are the state's Emergency Planners and Emergency Managers. In California, our four seasons are officially Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and "to be determined." We put in long hours alongside the emergency personnel that seek to split our union.

First consider the pay ranges for FEMA Emergency Planners:

Emergency Management Program Specialist is 48,108.00 - 107,854.00 a year.

Emergency Response Planner $60,840.00 - $112,735.00 per year

Sr. Technological Hazards Program Specialist $86,715.00 - $112,735.00 per year

Supervisory Emergency Management Program Specialist $82,178.00 - $126,240.00 per year

Now look at what California pays:

EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR, $44,976 - $65,436 per year

SENIOR EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $59,532 - $71,844 per year

Instead of raising the pay for these classes, and using an appropriate classification to supervise (like Senior Emergency Management Coordinator $72,288- $87,312), they use a non-represented class to supervise these planners:

PROGRAM MANAGER I, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES $62,460 - $75,444 per year

Oddly enough, few emergency planners are interested in promoting. It's not really a promotion when you give up your overtime and lose union representation. No real incentive to promote.

Please don't use my name in your articles.

The tone of the e-mail left us with the impression that the author was against sworn officers severing ties with CSLEA, but to be sure, we asked. The reply:

I am against the move. I think we will be left behind as yet another obscure group of unknown classes with even less political clout.... Emergency Management is a strange field, as there is no real formal training. If you learn the job and truly become knowledgeable in it, you possess a rare and valuable skill that can be worth over $100 an hour as a consultant. And that is another place we lose our people to. There is plenty of money for consultants, but yet nothing for salaries -- More outsourcing of employee jobs.

From today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

Fed up with large pay raises for executives of California's public universities, the chairman of the Assembly's higher-education committee (Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena) introduced legislation yesterday that would freeze salaries of state employees who make more than $150,000 a year.

Portantino said he did not know how many employees would be affected or how much might be saved.

This link will take you to the U-T story. Click here to read the language of Portanino's bill, AB 53.

IMAGE: Anthony Portantino / Sacramento Bee

From today's story by Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh:

The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and California attorney general are investigating whether members of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board broke conflict-of-interest laws in 2005 when they voted to offer their own chairwoman a job in San Diego.

Three members of that board, including former Democratic Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, voted to give Thornton the judgeship in San Diego, where she now earns $109,000 hearing claims from workers who say they were unfairly denied state unemployment benefits.

Read the entire story by clicking here. And if you missed it, check out the Nov. 27 State Worker column, "Nepotism poisons the workplace."

IMAGE: www.labor.ca.gov

The Associated Press led its Pennsylvania budget story Wednesday night with this:

The state's second round of spending cuts will mean no cost-of-living raises for thousands of state employees as Pennsylvania's financial outlook continues to unravel amid a deepening global financial plunge, Gov. Ed Rendell said Wednesday.

We were more interested in this part of the story:

Also Wednesday, some legislators pledged to give back their new cost-of-living raises, while newly sworn-in Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati said he is laying off a dozen or so employees he is inheriting from Catherine Baker Knoll, who died last month.

Add Scarnati and those unnamed state workers in Pennsylvania to the Redding city council to the small but growing list of public officials leading by example in these tough times by cutting their own pay, staff or perks.

We're still waiting to add a California elected official (other than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) to the list ...

IMAGE: Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati / www.legis.state.pa.us

CalPERS, CalSTRS and five other leading institutional investors are sending out a survey to 500 asset managers to determine how they are evaluating climate concerns when looking at investment opportunities.

You can read the press release by clicking here.

We're continuing our education on the rules governing state worker layoffs and passing along information to you as we learn it.

To understand the steps of the state's layoff process, click here for a detailed chart and explainer on DPA's Web site.

Then there's this from Jason Dickerson, the guru of state worker stuff in at the LAO. He sent along the following language from the Government Code that would apply if the state enacts layoffs after reading our previous post and a question there about layoffs when most bargaining units don't have a current contract:

As for the question of expired contracts, recall that Government Code Section 3517.8(a) provides in part: "If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations...the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions, any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 201) of Title 29 of the United States Code), and any provisions covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7."

"All layoff provisions and procedures established or agreed to...shall be subject to State Personnel Board review pursuant to Section 19816.2" of the code, according to Section 19997. Section 19816.2 provides that layoff procedures are "subject to review by the State Personnel Board for consistency with merit employment principles as provided for by Article VII of the California Constitution."

CLARIFICATION: Our post yesterday also referred to hearing from state workers who believe that the state must give them a 6-month notice before a layoff. DPA's Lynelle Jolley explained that the longer notice is a "surplus" notice, which is different from a layoff notice. Jolley also mentioned that the surplus notice period is 120 days, not six months.

We just wanted to set the record straight.

Redding's five-member city council on Tuesday night voted to give up its retirement health plan for council members but kept their pension plan in place. The city needs to make $3 million in budget cuts and faces an estimated $94 million in retiree health insurance costs over the next three decades.

The story on the Redding Record Searchlight's Web site, quotes Missy McArthur, who is new to the council: "I am anxious that the city council lead by example. We are probably going to be making some pretty tough decisions, and if we are going to be asking employees to come in at a different rate we should be willing to do the same."

As we noted in a Thursday column a few weeks ago, state employees would love to hear elected state workers in the Capitol say something like that.

A couple of other examples of sacrifice from Redding: A separate story published on Monday by Chico TV station KHSL, noted that the city manager and city attorney have both declined to take COLAs and have postponed their scheduled raises.

KHSL also reported, "As part of negotiations, the city has asked the eight labor unions to make similar changes to the health benefits for future retirees - having them pay the full premium instead of a 50 percent discounted rate. Service Employee International Union Local 1292 (SEIU) which represents administrative and service city employees, have agreed to those changes."

IMAGE: www.ci.redding.ca.us

Our Cap Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura blogs about the SEIU State Council's "dream plan," which, Kevin defines as a " ... dream in the politest of terms, as in it might happen in a parallel universe where Democrats don't need any Republican votes and federal dollars pour from the sky."

Click here to read his post on our companion blog, Capitol Alert.

As we reported earlier, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said that the state's financial crisis is so severe that he is "almost forced" into laying off state workers.

We had some questions, so we contacted the Department of Personnel Administration spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley. She responded via e-mail:

Does the governor have the authority to lay off workers?

Yes, a Governor has this right.

I've seen the layoff language on the DPA Web site that requires a 30-day notice and that most union contracts require 60 days. Since most bargaining units don't have contracts right now, does the 60-day notice apply at all, or is 30 days all that is required?

We're still required to notify affected unions as well as employees, and to negotiate over a layoff's impact. Those notice periods can overlap; they're not sequential.

Some state workers who have e-mailed me insist that the notice period is more like 6 months.

The longer notice period you've heard about refers to the "surplus" notice employees get. That's a different type of notice that lets employees know that a layoff is coming and they might be affected.

In general, more employees receive surplus notices than actual layoff notices. The purpose of a surplus notice is to allow time for potentially affected employees to find a more secure job. (Surplus employees get hiring preference when departments fill open state jobs.)

(The State Worker notes that you can read about "surplus" and how the process works by clicking here.)

Has the state laid off workers before due to budget concerns?

The last time the State faced a major layoff threat was 2003. The 2003-04 budget eliminated 16,000 positions, many of which were unfilled in anticipation of this possibility, and cut $1.1 billion ($585 million of it was General Fund) from personnel. Leading up to adoption of that budget, the State issued thousands of surplus notices, which allowed most affected employees to move into jobs with more secure funding.

IMAGE: DPA